Vision-language-action (VLA) models have improved the flexibility and generality of robotic manipulation, yet they remain fragile to online disruptions, such as changes in task goal, scene configuration, or robot state. Existing recovery methods often require failure data, policy retraining, or external corrective agents, introducing additional data requirements and execution risks. We propose Counterfactual Realignment (CoRe), a training-free framework that recovers a frozen VLA at inference time without failure data. Upon detecting a deviation, CoRe imagines how the policy would continue toward the current goal from a recent viable state, using synthesized observations in place of physical execution, and then minimally realigns the robot and scene to rejoin this imagined continuation before returning control to the policy. Recovery is therefore planned without physical trial-and-error, preserves completed task progress, and handles both mid-episode instruction changes and physical perturbations in a unified manner. Extensive experiments across multiple simulators, VLA backbones, and real-world settings show that CoRe improves success rates by up to 85.0 percentage points to near-nominal levels while reducing physical restorations by 42.2%, without policy fine-tuning or failure-specific recovery training.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: OOD recovery paradigms for VLA models. (a) Post-training on failure data and (b) delegating recovery to an external module both hinge on costly retraining or a reliable auxiliary system. (c) CoRe instead plans recovery virtually and returns control to the same frozen policy.
Figure 2: Overview of CoRe. An online perturbation trips the suffix OOD detector and interrupts the frozen VLA (top). Recovery runs through the virtual planning stages (bottom), passing the recovery anchor, the rejoin state c∗ , and the restoration subset S∗ left to right. Only the final rearrangement and handoff produces physical motion before control returns to the frozen VLA.
Figure 3: Synthesized observations. Exocentric and egocentric views at imagined ticks, arm rendered by FK, residual holes inpainted.
Figure 4: Overview of the LangSwitch Tasks , spanning the Re-grounding , Re-skilling , and Conflict switch families defined in the Experimental Setup.
Method
No-Switch
Re-grounding
Re-skilling
Conflict
Average
Pk → Pk
Ps → Ps
Pc → Pc
Pk → Ps
Pc → Pl
St → Pk
Ps → Pl
Pc → Ps
St → St
Switch
All
Base
π0 ( Black et al. 2024 )
90.6
8.3 ± 13.6
0.7 ± 0.6
0.0 ± 0.0
7.7 ± 9.0
12.3 ± 7.5
27.0 ± 20.9
0.7 ± 1.2
91.0 ± 8.2
17.0 ± 12.1
18.3 ± 5.9
44.1
π0.5 ( Intelligence et al. 2025 )
97.8
29.0 ± 50.2
21.3 ± 37.0
0.0 ± 0.0
33.0 ± 39.8
56.3 ± 5.5
65.7 ± 56.9
7.0 ± 12.1
85.0 ± 11.5
22.3 ± 17.1
35.5 ± 21.3
57.8
GR00T N1.7 ( NVIDIA 2026 )
88.4
5.0 ± 2.6
4.0 ± 5.3
0.0 ± 0.0
4.7 ± 5.7
27.7 ± 1.2
12.7 ± 11.0
7.7 ± 12.4
88.7 ± 4.0
17.0 ± 15.6
18.6 ± 4.6
43.5
Ours
π0 + CoRe
90.0
98.7 ± 1.5
87.7 ± 1.5
73.0 ± 2.6
95.7 ± 0.6
88.7 ± 2.9
95.3 ± 4.7
83.3 ± 8.1
97.0 ± 2.0
68.0 ± 7.9
87.5 ± 0.6
88.4
π0.5 + CoRe
97.2
97.7 ± 0.6
98.3 ± 1.5
87.0 ± 1.0
99.7 ± 0.6
96.0 ± 1.0
92.7 ± 1.5
92.3 ± 7.4
98.7 ± 1.5
72.0 ± 11.8
92.7 ± 1.3
94.3
Table 1: Success rate (%) on the LangSwitch tasks with an xArm6 robot. Each switch pair is evaluated at 3 switch timings (shallow, mid, deep), 100 episodes each; per-pair cells and the Switch average report the mean ± sample standard deviation across the 3 timings. No-Switch reports the mean over the 5 base skills (100 episodes each), and All is the macro average over all 14 task settings (5 No-Switch + 9 switch pairs). Pk=Pick, Ps=Push, Pc=Place, Pl=Pull, St=Stack.
Figure 5: Overview of the LIBERO-Long with Perturbation Tasks , spanning the Arm Collision , Grasp Failure , Object Displace , and Object Tip perturbation families defined in the Experimental Setup.
Method
Perturbation Type
Average
Arm Coll.
Grasp Fail.
Obj. Disp.
Obj. Tip
Baselines
OpenVLA ( Kim et al. 2024 )
3.3 ± 2.5
41.3 ± 1.6
3.2 ± 1.0
3.3 ± 0.6
12.8 ± 0.3
OpenVLA-OFT ( Kim et al. 2025 )
18.7 ± 4.3
65.0 ± 9.5
13.5 ± 6.4
10.3 ± 3.9
26.9 ± 1.8
π0.5 ( Intelligence et al. 2025 )
37.0 ± 8.7
65.0 ± 1.7
43.8 ± 7.0
28.0 ± 2.8
43.5 ± 2.3
VLA-Adapter ( Wang et al. 2026 )
21.3 ± 5.8
65.0 ± 4.5
10.8 ± 1.9
10.5 ± 2.8
26.9 ± 2.4
X-VLA ( Zheng et al. 2026 )
60.5 ± 5.2
51.2 ± 7.3
6.2 ± 0.6
9.7 ± 0.8
31.9 ± 2.8
Table 2: Post-perturbation success rate (%) on LIBERO-Long with a Franka Panda robot. Each of the 3 perturbation timings (shallow, mid, deep) is evaluated over 200 episodes (10 tasks × 20 episodes); cells report mean ± sample standard deviation across the 3 timings. For CoRe, the Average additionally reports in parentheses the fully autonomous Arm-Only variant, which weights each restoration by the arm’s measured execution feasibility.
Condition
π0.5
+CoRe
Δ [n (pp)]
∙ Language Switch
Re-grounding (pick → pick)
6/20
18/20
+12 ( +60 )
Re-skilling (pick → push)
1/20
18/20
+17 ( +85 )
Conflict (place → push)
1/20
18/20
+17 ( +85 )
∙ Physical Perturbation
Arm Collision (place)
9/20
17/20
+8 ( +40 )
Table 3: Real-world xArm6 results , evaluated using layout-paired trials with stratified perturbation timings.
Figure 6: Effect of injection timing. Success rate at each injection timing, bare versus with CoRe. Bare policies are timing-sensitive under language switches yet nearly timing-invariant under physical perturbations, and CoRe lifts and flattens all curves.
Figure 7: Overview of the Real-World Tasks. We validate the feasibility of CoRe beyond simulation on a physical xArm6 across multiple task families and objects.
Figure 8: Fidelity of synthesized rollouts. Endpoint TCP divergence between synthesized and GT rollouts from the same anchor (bars: median, whiskers: 90th percentile).
Figure 9: Mechanism ablation on LangSwitch. Top , overall comparison of the 4 recovery variants. #Restored is the number of objects physically moved per episode, and Post-hand Steps counts the control steps executed after handoff. Bottom , #Restored split by switch family.
Figure 10: Virtual probing versus physical execution. Probing a recovery hypothesis in imagination is 2-5 times cheaper than testing it with the arm.
Appendix figures & tables15 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Family
Pair
Target relation
Re-grounding
pick → pick
different color
Re-grounding
push → push
different color
Re-grounding
place → place
different color and bin
Re-skilling
pick → push
different color
Re-skilling
place → pull
different color
Re-skilling
stack → pick
leftover cube
Appendix
Table A1: The nine LangSwitch pairs. Colors are drawn per episode from eight colors.
Object
Upright
Tipped / Inverted
alphabet soup
100
100
tomato sauce
100
100
butter
100
100
chocolate pudding
100
100
cream cheese
98
100
black book
100
0
Appendix
Table A2: Oracle grasp success rates (%) per object and orientation, exactly as consumed by the Arm-Only weighting. Rates come from 50 motion-planned trials per tested object–orientation pair, 900 trials in total. Non-upright poses share one tested rate per object. The bowl entry lists its side and upside-down rates separately, and its side rate is carried over from the upright grasp rather than measured. The zero entries are orientations whose required grasp width exceeds the gripper aperture and are geometrically infeasible.
Backbone
pick
push
pull
place
stack
π0
59
61
63
102
285
π0.5
63
55
62
108
299
GR00T N1.7
60
42
61
89
292
Appendix
Table A3: Per-backbone minimum completion times MA (control steps) used for switch timing.
Parameter
Value
Notes
Detection samples K
8
mean-pooled
Trigger nconsec
3
3-of-3 raw scores
Plateau backup
5 @ 0.9τk
sustained scores
Refractory period
16 queries
between triggers
τk quantile
0.95
held-out successes
Bank size (LS)
50 eps/task
successes only
Appendix
Table A4: CoRe hyperparameters. LS denotes LangSwitch and LB denotes LIBERO-Long.
Figure A1: Synthesized observations, as consumed by the frozen policy. Columns are the three domains, rows are the two viewpoints. LangSwitch shows a frame of an imagined continuation, in which the target is rendered in mid-air because the counterfactual has already grasped it. LIBERO shows the dual-view synthesis of a single imagined state. The real-robot column shows the repaint a subset probe is evaluated on, with the candidate objects removed and the vacated pixels filled from the background store.
Figure A2: Anchor-divergence threshold sweep on the validation pairs. Success peaks at δ=0.09 and collapses for later anchors.
Figure A3: Trajectory-equivalence threshold sweep on the validation pairs. The shaded band is the admissible plateau, and ϵ∗=0.050 minimizes restorations within it.
Bare
+CoRe
Family
Pair
S
M
D
S
M
D
π0
Re-grounding
pick → pick
24.0
1.0
0.0
99.0
97.0
100.0
Re-grounding
push → push
1.0
0.0
1.0
86.0
89.0
88.0
Re-grounding
place → place
0.0
0.0
0.0
74.0
75.0
70.0
Re-skilling
pick → push
18.0
2.0
3.0
96.0
96.0
95.0
Appendix
Table A5: LangSwitch per-cell success rates (%). Each cell is 100 episodes. S/M/D denote shallow/mid/deep switch timing.
Arm collision
Grasp failure
Object displace
Object tip
Method
S
M
D
S
M
D
S
M
D
S
M
D
Avg
OpenVLA
1.0
3.0
6.0
42.5
42.0
39.5
4.0
3.5
2.0
3.0
4.0
3.0
12.8 ± 0.3
RobustVLA
10.0
10.5
19.0
34.0
50.5
57.0
3.0
1.5
3.5
2.5
3.5
4.0
16.6 ± 4.3
GR00T N1.7
8.5
18.0
20.5
40.5
49.5
48.0
19.5
17.0
12.5
13.5
14.5
18.5
23.4 ± 2.5
OpenVLA-OFT
15.5
17.0
23.5
54.5
67.5
73.0
20.5
12.0
8.0
13.5
6.0
11.5
26.9 ± 1.8
VLA-Adapter
15.0
22.5
26.5
60.5
65.0
69.5
13.0
10.0
9.5
11.0
7.5
13.0
26.9 ± 2.4
Appendix
Table A6: LIBERO-Long per-family per-timing success rates (%). Each entry aggregates 200 episodes. S/M/D denote shallow/mid/deep perturbation timing, and Avg reports mean and sample standard deviation across the three timings.
π0
π0.5
GR00T N1.7
Skill
Bare
+CoRe
Bare
+CoRe
Bare
+CoRe
pick
100.0
100.0
98.0
100.0
99.0
100.0
push
94.0
97.0
100.0
100.0
91.0
92.0
place
90.0
91.0
97.0
93.0
81.0
89.0
pull
93.0
91.0
98.0
99.0
95.0
94.0
stack
76.0
71.0
96.0
94.0
76.0
76.0
Appendix
Table A7: No-Switch per-skill success rates (%) on LangSwitch. Each cell aggregates 100 episodes.
Figure A4: Real-robot success rate per condition, 20 episodes each, for the bare policy and for the same frozen policy wrapped in CoRe.
Figure A5: Recovery composition under Scene Rearrangement: of the objects displaced above tolerance, the share the probe restores and the share it declines to touch.
Bare
+CoRe
Condition
all
S
M
D
Re-grounding pick → pick
6/20
7/7
5/7
6/6
Re-skilling pick → push
1/20
6/7
6/7
6/6
Conflict place → push
1/20
6/7
7/7
5/6
Arm collision
9/20
6/7
5/7
6/6
Scene rearrangement
4/20
7/7
6/7
6/6
Appendix
Table A8: Real-robot success by injection timing. S/M/D denote shallow/mid/deep, at the same 0.30/0.55/0.75 fractions of the recalibrated real phase.
Bare
+CoRe
Collisions or emergency stops
21/100
5/100
Appendix
Table A9: Physical safety over the 100 layout-paired episodes. CoRe removes three quarters of the unsafe terminations in absolute count.
Skill
pick
place
push
Nominal success
19/20
19/20
20/20
Appendix
Table A10: Unperturbed control condition, frozen checkpoint, 20 episodes per skill.
Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models remain brittle in long-horizon, contact-rich manipulation because success-only imitation provides little supervision for execution drift, while failed rollouts are often discarded. We introduce RePO-VLA, a recovery-driven policy optimization framework that assigns distinct roles to success, recovery, and failure trajectories. RePO-VLA first applies Recovery-Aware Initialization (RAI), slicing recovery segments and resetting history so corrective actions depend on the current adverse state rather than the preceding failure. It then learns a Progress-Aware Semantic Value Function (PAS-VF), aligning spatiotemporal trajectory features with instructions and successful references. The resulting labels salvage useful failure prefixes via reliability decay, while low-value labels mark drift and terminal breakdowns, teaching differences among nominal, failed, and corrective actions. The data engine turns adverse states into planner-generated or human-collected corrective rollouts, teaching recovery to the success manifold. Value-Conditioned Refinement (VCR) trains the policy to prefer high-progress actions. At deployment, a fixed high value (v=1.0) biases actions toward the learned success manifold without online failure detectors or heuristic retries. We introduce FRBench, with standardized error injection and recovery-focused evaluation. Across simulated and real-world bimanual tasks, RePO-VLA improves robustness, raising adversarial success from 20% to 75% on average and up to 80% in scaled real-world trials.
Weijia Liufu, Xiaoyu Guo, Ruiyi Chen +16
1Sun Yat-sen University · 2South China University of Technology · 3Peng Cheng Laboratory +3
Vision-language-action (VLA) policies provide strong priors for language-conditioned manipulation, but remain brittle in off-nominal states requiring targeted recovery. We propose ReCoVLA -- a failure-conditioned residual recovery framework that keeps a pretrained VLA policy frozen, uses an external vision-language model (VLM) to infer the failure mode and recovery stage, and compiles a structured reward from task-relevant components. Rather than using the VLM to generate actions or rewards directly, ReCoVLA uses it as a semantic reward selector: it predicts a recovery descriptor and reward mask for in-simulation residual-policy training, followed by zero-shot sim-to-real deployment of the trained recovery policies. This decouples high-level failure understanding from low-level corrective control to support different VLAs. Experiments across short-horizon, long-horizon, and contact-rich manipulation tasks show that ReCoVLA outperforms the tested baselines on average. In simulation, our reward compiler improves average success from 36.7% for the fine-tuned π0.5 baseline to 66.7%. In physical zero-shot sim-to-real experiments, ReCoVLA achieves the best average performance, with 61.7% success.
Haodi Hu, Chung-Ta Huang, Jing Liu +4
University of Southern California, USA · Mitsubishi Electric Research Laboratories (MERL), USA · Harvard University, USA
Vision-language-action (VLA) policies perform manipulation tasks using camera images and language instructions, but object slip or visual occlusion can disrupt execution. Recovery is typically learned during policy training or delegated to a monitor that triggers a scripted repair after detecting a failure. We introduce ForkCast, a predictive recovery framework that compares counterfactual futures to determine whether and how to intervene in a frozen VLA policy. At each decision point, ForkCast evaluates three candidates: executing the policy's nominal action chunk (Commit), adjusting the camera viewpoint (Reobserve), and replanning the arm trajectory (Replan). A candidate-conditioned world model forecasts the latent outcome of each candidate at a common future horizon, and a shared task-progress head scores the predicted outcomes. By evaluating the policy's own continuation alongside the repair candidates, a single comparison based on task progress determines both whether and how to intervene, without a failure detector, an intervention threshold, or updates to the VLA backbone. On five simulated RoboTwin 2.0 tasks with injected occlusion and object slip, ForkCast increases pooled success from 13.3% for the frozen π0.5 policy to 30.0% and transfers to two additional VLA backbones without updating ForkCast. After adaptation on real-robot candidate rollouts, ForkCast also improves success over the base policy under both clean and visibility-limited conditions. Code will be released to benefit the research community.
Chenru Wen, Huajian Zeng, Haokai Ding +5
Mohamed bin Zayed University of Artificial Intelligence (MBZUAI), UAE. · Virginia Tech, USA.